Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[ViSion]

Depends on the fruit.

It was an orange.

 

[ViSion]

A teacher once responded to me once when I asked the question, "If God exists how come I can't feel his presence?" And this teacher told me, "You know the wind is real and You can't see it. You know Gravity is real and you can't see it either. You have faith that these things exist despite the fact that you cannot see them."

Vision's replies remind me alot of that same scenario. I didn't simply ask "If I couldn't see God how can I know he is there?" But I actually asked "How come I can't feel his presence?" Someone like Vision will respond to such a question in such a way that seems smart and thoughtful (to him) but it really is dodging the issue.

I can't see the wind but I can feel it. I can see hurricanes tear through villages. I can see the air as it collects dust and pulverises a desert.

I can't see gravity but if I allow myself to fall backwards I will bash my ass.

The page or two before this someone asked Vision (I believe it was Cope) to explain how he feels God's presence. He sidestepped. Is it such a hard question?

This is a new one now your having an argument with me, without me even being involved. lol. Can you possibly become any more self centered?

That was not his question, and it was answered. We covered this before your behavior is akin to little children you get an answer which does not suit your fancy. So you cover your ears and cry out I do not want to hear that. Well unfortunately that is your problem get over it.

 

[Evil_Cope]

Indeed, i'm not sure i asked how one feels gods presence several pages ago. i did a page ago, though, and am still waiting for a straight answer.

God is not his teachings, the teachings of god are just that, his teachings. Words on paper that provoke thought, and give mankind clues as to how to live our lives.

That is not god, even if it is of god.

If experiencing something means that it exists, all that you prove exist through god's teachings, are gods teachings.

My question was a simple one. I do not dislike the answer because you have not actually given me one. I believe Cat Fuzz posted some thoughts on what it is to experience god, once, or something to that effect. It is not a trick question, Vision. I am not inquiring as to whether or not anyone actually ever has experienced god truly, I am simply asking if someone was to experience God, as you said, what would they actually experience and how?

If you have eaten an orange, it was probably sweet, because oranges are sweet. If it wasn't, you probably need to throw your oranges away.

 

[ViSion]

I’ve repeatedly asked you to answer the question directly. Does that sound like I’m posing a rhetorical question to you?

“Indeed by your own words here your question was and still is a rhetorical question.”

What did I tell you? Huh? I said it wasn’t a rhetorical question. You had and still have an opportunity to answer the question directly, so it’s not rhetorical. It was also there for others to chime in and answer if they felt like it.

“Why does it matter that I only choose one of your answers if it was not intended to persuade or impress on a opinion.”

Think of it as a psychological test. You go in for a job interview and they give you a battery of tests. They give you a pencil and you shade in the circle that best describes your opinion. Do not shade in more than one circle. Lines drawn through the circle are incorrect. Partial shading is incorrect. An X or a checkmark in a circle is incorrect. Do not write on the test other than your name, etc., etc. You know the drill.

So here you are writing all over the test and wondering why you never got hired. It wasn’t:

A: The nerd
B: The hero
C: Other (Explain)

But to answer your question: why does it matter that you answer the question directly?

It matters to you. That’s a question that you should be asking yourself. How do you think people view you when you refuse to answer a simple question directly and honestly? How do you live with yourself?

“You just stated that you asked the question to see wether or not I would answer it. So basically you asked the question for effect making it a rhetorical question to which you have received more than one answer.”

I hoped you would answer it, but I suspected you might not because of my past experience with people in religious debates. Again, the question was there for you and for others to answer. I took out all the references to god and whatnot and made it an innocent question about children and an old man in a neighborhood; a question that any of those little kids could answer. A question that wasn’t loaded and only pertained to logic.

I’ve repeatedly asked you to answer the question directly. Honestly, does that sound like I’m asking a rhetorical question? If the question was asked rhetorically, I sure as hell wouldn’t be repeatedly asking you to answer it, now would I? Duh! I mentioned that I wondered if you’d answer it directly, but how does that imply it’s a rhetorical question, huh? Wondering if you’d answer the question directly, in fact, demonstrates that it’s not a rhetorical question. If it was a rhetorical question, I wouldn’t be expecting anything, now would I? But you know this, right? I mean, either you’re playing dumb, or you actually are dumb. Do you really want me to assume you’re dumb?

Sorry, you lose the argument on this rhetorical matter.

Look, you’re exhibiting a pattern that many religious people exhibit. You’ll get pinned down by logic and you can’t recover. You have no ammunition. Instead of thinking about the point that’s brought up, you choose to ignore it and walk around with blinders on thinking there’s some magical god looking over you and one day you’ll go to some magical place when you die. You’re like some little kid: Johnny, I’m trying to tell you if you keep drinking all that soda with sugar in it, you’re going to get a tooth ache. “No I won’t, Mom, I have strong teeth.” There’s no mulling over Mom’s comment. No “Maybe she’s right and I need to further research this.” Let me objectively start gathering data to determine if there’s some validity in what she says.

Maybe you should have been an ostrich.

You really have a marble obsession. I get the feeling you can talk yourself into just about anything. You slay me, you out right admit it was rhetorical then convince yourself that it is not. Then you expect me to go duh oh yeah you did not just say I just wanted to see if you would answer the question making the question on that point alone rhetorical. Now convince me that is not what you said. Or maybe you are using a definition of rhetorical that I am not aware of. I would offer the definition but we know small things like that do not matter here.

 

[Evil_Cope]

Say a person is experiencing GOD, how does he then not exist?

If a person is genuinely experiencing God, then God exists. If he merely believes himself to be, then he may or may not.

I ask again; the question is, what form does this experiencing you mention take?
If "Reading the bible" is your only response, i shall be greatly disapointed.


Oh, also Q- I'd go with the nerd. The other guy may well be smarter, but the pure weight of statistics is on the side of the Nerd, and his 1000 tries.
It is a weighted question though, you realise.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

Can you possibly become any more self centered?

You are correct. How selfish of me to ask questions during a debate. Clearly, that makes me a self-centered jerk.

That was not his question, and it was answered.

Really? Than how about...

i'm not sure i asked how one feels gods presence several pages ago. i did a page ago, though, and am still waiting for a straight answer.

God is not his teachings, the teachings of god are just that, his teachings. Words on paper that provoke thought, and give mankind clues as to how to live our lives.

That is not god, even if it is of god.

If experiencing something means that it exists, all that you prove exist through god's teachings, are gods teachings.

My question was a simple one. I do not dislike the answer because you have not actually given me one. I believe Cat Fuzz posted some thoughts on what it is to experience god, once, or something to that effect. It is not a trick question, Vision. I am not inquiring as to whether or not anyone actually ever has experienced god truly, I am simply asking if someone was to experience God, as you said, what would they actually experience and how?

And the real kicker is...

So you cover your ears and cry out I do not want to hear that. Well unfortunately that is your problem get over it.

Apparently it isn't just my problem. It would appear you are the only one with selective hearing (or reading rather)

We covered this before your behavior is akin to little children you get an answer which does not suit your fancy.

Congratulations. You have acheived the exact definiton of a dismissive religious person. I mean you had alot of evidence piling up already but that statement was the cherry on the pie

I'm perfectly content with any serious answer you have to say. My dialogue with other people in this debate is proof to that. The problem is you have yet to respond with a real answer. But of course...it has to be just me, right? Cus I'm the ONLY other person calling you out, eh?

And YOU are questioning my credibility in this thing?

It was an orange.

Then I would say oranges are sweet fruits.

There. That is what an answer to a question looks like. I'll give you a dollar if you can answer Qualthwar's ball drop question. No vague cryptic nonesense. Just pick a number. If you can do that then maybe we'll get somewhere.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

You really have a marble obsession. I get the feeling you can talk yourself into just about anything. You slay me, you out right admit it was rhetorical then convince yourself that it is not. Then you expect me to go duh oh yeah you did not just say I just wanted to see if you would answer the question making the question on that point alone rhetorical. Now convince me that is not what you said. Or maybe you are using a definition of rhetorical that I am not aware of. I would offer the definition but we know small things like that do not matter here.

Where have I given a crooked answer?

 

[ViSion]

Indeed, i'm not sure i asked how one feels gods presence several pages ago. i did a page ago, though, and am still waiting for a straight answer.

God is not his teachings, the teachings of god are just that, his teachings. Words on paper that provoke thought, and give mankind clues as to how to live our lives.

That is not god, even if it is of god.

If experiencing something means that it exists, all that you prove exist through god's teachings, are gods teachings.

My question was a simple one. I do not dislike the answer because you have not actually given me one. I believe Cat Fuzz posted some thoughts on what it is to experience god, once, or something to that effect. It is not a trick question, Vision. I am not inquiring as to whether or not anyone actually ever has experienced god truly, I am simply asking if someone was to experience God, as you said, what would they actually experience and how?

If you have eaten an orange, it was probably sweet, because oranges are sweet. If it wasn't, you probably need to throw your oranges away.

Maybe you misunderstand me I am not here to convert anyone if you are seeking an experience with GOD I just pointed you in a direction where you could find that experience and experience it for yourself. From your answer about the orange you do not know whether it was sweet or sour. Likewise if you never had a relationship with GOD how can you know whether or not it was sweet or sour. What seems to have gone missing here is the statement I made was a hypothetical one the issue was reality Chrysaor did not seem to have any problem understanding what I was addressing. So what is your real issue are you asking this question because you want a better understanding or because your looking to fuel your beliefs by the beliefs of someone else. Are you that insecure in your own beliefs?

 

[Evil_Cope]

Maybe you misunderstand me I am not here to convert anyone if you are seeking an experience with GOD I just pointed you in a direction where you could find that experience and experience it for yourself. From your answer about the orange you do not know whether it was sweet or sour. Likewise if you never had a relationship with GOD how can you know whether or not it was sweet or sour.

My interest is purely an idle one, i rather enjoy discussion for discussions sake. Reguardless of any conclusions reached, the activity broadens the mind.

I am asking my question because i am interested in your genuine answer.

I do not know the orange was sweet, but it is an asumption that is backed by experience. I have, and can eat oranges for myself, etc.

I cannot know whether your orange was sweet, (like a ripe orange) or sour (like an orange farmed from satan's arsecrack). But you could, infact, tell me. You could describe how it tasted, what part of your tongue reacted and what the flavour resembled, by comparing it to the best of your knoledge with similar and disimilar foods. you could describe the orange's shape, and the texture of the peel.

I still would not know the orange like you yourself do, but i would know that the orange was, infact, sour.


Have you ever felt the presence of God, Vision? Maybe you haven't, it's not a pre-requisit for belief in many people. Have you experienced god in some way? How so?

These are questions i'm sure that Cat Fuzz has answered before, and he gave interesting, personal and direct responses to them.
I would be intruiged to know your answers.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Post #958:

It wasn’t a rhetorical question. You only had two choices to choose from.

You slay me, you out right admit it was rhetorical then convince yourself that it is not.

Then you expect me to go duh oh yeah you did not just say I just wanted to see if you would answer the question making the question on that point alone rhetorical. Now convince me that is not what you said.

Do you have any idea what a rhetorical question is?

"a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply"

RATHER THAN ELICIT A REPLY! In effect, it can be looked upon as a statement and not really a question.

One doesn't wonder if someone will answer the question if it’s rhetorical, because it’s not meant to be answered. I wouldn’t have wondered if you would answer the question if it wasn’t meant to be answered.

Trying to reason tangible evidence with you reminds me of the guy at the bus stop. He hears a noise and looks straight up to see a giant blimp going over. A bunch of people around him are checking it out, too. He looks over to the guy standing next to him and says:

Wow, that’s a pretty good-sized blimp.
What blimp.
The blimp right there, flying over.
There’s no blimp.
It’s right freakin’ there.
No. No blimp in the sky, just some clouds and birds.
So what’s that giant thing over our heads and what’s that sound we’re hearing?
There is no sound. There is nothing over our heads. Just a sky with clouds and birds.

 

[ViSion]

You are correct. How selfish of me to ask questions during a debate. Clearly, that makes me a self-centered jerk.



Really? Than how about...



And the real kicker is...





Apparently it isn't just my problem. It would appear you are the only one with selective hearing (or reading rather)



Congratulations. You have acheived the exact definiton of a dismissive religious person. I mean you had alot of evidence piling up already but that statement was the cherry on the pie

I'm perfectly content with any serious answer you have to say. My dialogue with other people in this debate is proof to that. The problem is you have yet to respond with a real answer. But of course...it has to be just me, right? Cus I'm the ONLY other person calling you out, eh?

And YOU are questioning my credibility in this thing?



Then I would say oranges are sweet fruits.

There. That is what an answer to a question looks like. I'll give you a dollar if you can answer Qualthwar's ball drop question. No vague cryptic nonesense. Just pick a number. If you can do that then maybe we'll get somewhere.

Excuse me, why do you not ask a real question in which you are not going to whine about how it is answered? I have not told anyone here o boo hoo you can not use that statement here because you can not prove it; or that facts can not be used because they come from referenced sources, or when were you in a laboratory and proved what your stating is by your own knowledge. Get off your o so high horse it is a long fall down. Oh yeah excellent job of taking what I stated out of context.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Oh, also Q- I'd go with the nerd. The other guy may well be smarter, but the pure weight of statistics is on the side of the Nerd, and his 1000 tries.
It is a weighted question though, you realise.

Do you think it has some parallels with what we see in the real world? There is a path of faith. This path has a leader who speaks with people and they believe in what he says. Then you have a world of repeatable results where others can perform the same test for themselves and witness the outcome, like a science experiment.

 

[ViSion]

how is this an answer to the question? the question is either yes, or no. as far as i can tell your answer was essentially "i could tell you but you wouldn't understand".

So let me get this straight, you have never answered a question with a question? I commend you what can I say.

 

[Evil_Cope]

Do you think it has some parallels with what we see in the real world? There is a path of faith. This path has a leader who speaks with people and they believe in what he says. Then you have a world of repeatable results where others can perform the same test for themselves and witness the outcome, like a science experiment.

Oh, it has parallels, but it is clearly written from a scientific point of view.
The question seems to pit repeated testing (science, i suppose) against the opinion of one popular person. This side has more parallels with evangelical leaders and charlatans, as you try to use it to represent the religious side of the arguement, even though there is no element of religion or so on in the example.

It's an interesting question, but it does suffer from bias, old friend.

 

[ViSion]

My interest is purely an idle one, i rather enjoy discussion for discussions sake. Reguardless of any conclusions reached, the activity broadens the mind.

I am asking my question because i am interested in your genuine answer.

I do not know the orange was sweet, but it is an asumption that is backed by experience. I have, and can eat oranges for myself, etc.

I cannot know whether your orange was sweet, (like a ripe orange) or sour (like an orange farmed from satan's arsecrack). But you could, infact, tell me. You could describe how it tasted, what part of your tongue reacted and what the flavour resembled, by comparing it to the best of your knoledge with similar and disimilar foods. you could describe the orange's shape, and the texture of the peel.

I still would not know the orange like you yourself do, but i would know that the orange was, infact, sour.


Have you ever felt the presence of God, Vision? Maybe you haven't, it's not a pre-requisit for belief in many people. Have you experienced god in some way? How so?

These are questions i'm sure that Cat Fuzz has answered before, and he gave interesting, personal and direct responses to them.
I would be intruiged to know your answers.

Forgive me if I find it hard to believe here that someone is genuinely asking for an honest opinion. Maybe that is because any attempt at giving an honest answer here from a religious perspective let alone a biblical perspective have fell on deaf ears and met with a variety of rhetoric sarcasm, and whining.

 

[Evil_Cope]

Forgive me if I find it hard to believe here that someone is genuinely asking for an honest opinion. Maybe that is because any attempt at giving an honest answer here from a religious perspective let alone a biblical perspective have fell on deaf ears and met with a variety of rhetoric sarcasm, and whining.

You take too much of an adversarial aproach to really hope to be treated with universal respect around here, dude. we're not known for our manners, or political correctness.



Q - let me try see if i can't manage a more unbiased question;

Biblical scholars have finally agreed a date for "the rapture".
Tomorrow morning.
After years of carefully researching the bible, a large amount (though not all) have come to agree that early tomorrow morning, the world ends as christ returns, etc. You know the drill. They can offer you no proof, beyond the words of the bible and their own faith, but they assure you that they are 100% certain, and to repent now!.

Nasa, and various other science teams across the globe and across many disciplines respond with near-universal scepticism. No asteroids near earth, there is no unusual Siezemic (sp?) activity, no missing nuclear weapons and no sign of interplanetary bulldozers. Science being as it is, however, they can only say that it is highly improbably, possibly infinately so, that the world will end tomorrow morning.
But they cannot assure you that it definately won't. Some fringe scientists even lend support to the bible scholars, though there is some doubt as to their method, and they don't generally agree on how.

Who do you believe?

 

[bobtheking]

So let me get this straight, you have never answered a question with a question?

if it answers the question. your question was just dodging the original question, that is not answering it. if i misunderstood, clarify.

 

[Chrysaor]

This thread seems to be decaying into thoughtless bickering.

I am so drunk right now. ViSion, you're wrong because I'm right. And I mean that in a deeply philosophical sense. You didn't follow my comments about what we experience and how it leads to our reality, but I am condoning the existence of god. To experience god in my opinion has always been to recognize that there are things out of your effectual, logical control, things you will not understand. That's all god is, the "what I don't know" in your life. Everything works in a series of cause and effect leading to some reality, produced by that series of previous realities. The human mind is by nature of the limitations of the mental models we use to understand our existence and cope with it, incapable of understanding the complexity of this logic without a deeply cathartic experience. As such, it is a real conclusion to quantify god as real. Capital G or lower case. However, this does not exalt him above anything else which we manifest for our understanding of the universe and our unique realities.


OMG I am so wise, bow down, n00b!

 

[ViSion]

This thread seems to be decaying into thoughtless bickering.

I am so drunk right now. ViSion, you're wrong because I'm right. And I mean that in a deeply philosophical sense. You didn't follow my comments about what we experience and how it leads to our reality, but I am condoning the existence of god. To experience god in my opinion has always been to recognize that there are things out of your effectual, logical control, things you will not understand. That's all god is, the "what I don't know" in your life. Everything works in a series of cause and effect leading to some reality, produced by that series of previous realities. The human mind is by nature of the limitations of the mental models we use to understand our existence and cope with it, incapable of understanding the complexity of this logic without a deeply cathartic experience. As such, it is a real conclusion to quantify god as real. Capital G or lower case. However, this does not exalt him above anything else which we manifest for our understanding of the universe and our unique realities.


OMG I am so wise, bow down, n00b!

The only thing you were saying is reality is limited to self in which you are wrong. That maybe true of an individuals self centered viewpoint of reality but fails in addressing reality in Toto. As for your deep philosophical sense seeing that it is just like every other form of philosophy based on what another man considers their life’s point of view, opinion, or perspective your welcome to it.

If you had the ability to create yourself I would agree that your self centered philosophy has a genuine basis. By creating yourself I mean as a living organism not the manifestations of your mind, but as it stands you are a product of a mechanism in which you can not definitively point to the origin of your being.

You and the rest of your ilk here are not espousing anything new you are just as much religious zealots as any other group and much more hypercritical. Quit hiding behind the guise of science and stand up and be proud of the Atheist, Agnostics, or whatever form of spiritualism or materialism you subscribe to.

Since your religions do not have room for a GOD is it a miracle that you do not either? No, you are just by products of your faith as with most other religions you are just here to knock someone else’s faith. What a bunch of intellectual cowards.

You can also find someone who subscribes to your philosophical beliefs to bow down to you. I am sure you have plenty of candidates here that will volunteer to fulfill your need to be praised.

From you friendly neighborhood Noob!

 

[Nachimir]

Science is not a shield. It's the reason.